The stars of rock group Survivor are embroiled in a legal tussle with their record label bosses over royalties for their hit track Eye Of The Tiger. Bandmates Frank Sullivan III and James Peterik claim they are owed money from digital downloads and streams of the song, and they are battling executives at Sony Records for their share of the cash, according to TMZ.com.
The website reports the pair is suing in a bid to force Sony bosses to pay up.
News of the legal battle has emerged just months after the death of their singer Jimi Jamison, who passed away in September (14).

As America's Next Top Model's 21st cycle unfolds, we've decided to take a look at previous seasons to see how often Tyra and her ever-changing panel of judges choose the right model. As anyone who has watched the show throughout the years (and the marathons every time they're on TV) knows, the model you spend all season rooting for rarely wins, no matter how much she deserves to.
Cycle 1
WENN/David Livingston
Who Won: Adrianne Curry
Should Have Won: Adrianne Curry
If only Tyra's first season were a sign of things to come. She picked it right. Adrianne had that special blend of being cool, a good model, and reality TV perfection (which is essential for a first season). She went on to become a "star" on Vh1's CelebReality, and we continued to grow up watching the ups and downs of her relationship with a Brady. That sort of contribution to our adolescence is invaluable.
Cycle 2
Getty Images/WENN
Who Won: Yoanna House
Should Have Won: Mercedes Scelba-Shorte
Mercedes was perfect! She was such a great model, she had the cutest personality, and she was owning the competition while suffering with Lupus. Her final photo and her Billie Holiday photo are some of our favorite in ANTM history.
Cycle 3
WENN/Getty Images
Who Won: Eva Pigford
Should Have Won: Toccara Jones, Yaya DaCosta
Eva was okay, but we loved Toccara. She left too soon, and we began to root for Eva. Looking back on this cycle now though, it's hard not to feel like Yaya is sort of like ANTM's Jennifer Hudson -- she lost, but has the best career possibly out of any of the girls.
Cycle 4
Getty Images/Getty Images
Who Won: Naima Mora
Should Have Won: Kahlen Rondot
This is a no brainer. Kahlen was perfect. Naima was a good model, okay, sure. But she was quiet and enigmatic. Kahlen was shy, but adorable and relatable. And, if we're being frank, a far superior model.
Cycle 5
WENN/WENN
Who Won: Nicole Linklater
Should Have Won: Bre Scullark (or Nik Pace)
We loved Bre. We still love Bre. She will always be one of our favorites. We rooted for Nik after Bre was eliminated, but Tyra didn't seem to care and picked the annoying and whiny Nicole.
Cycle 6
WENN/WENN
Who Won: Danielle (Dani) Evans
Should Have Won: Joanie Dodds
This makes us uncomfortable to say, because we really like both girls here. This was one of the rare instances where we would have been happy regardless of who won. For some reason, we always remember this as the cycle that Joanie won though. Clearly she left the stronger impression (although we'll never forget Dani's photo on top of the elephant, while she was sick).
Cycle 7
WENN
Who Won: CariDee English
Should Have Won: CariDee English
We felt really bad when Melrose lost because she was consistently good. She tried so hard to be perfect. Sure, she wasn't the most likable, but she was undeniably a good model. But CariDee had the whole package. She was likable and could model. We would have been happy if one of the twins won too though (just saying...).
Cycle 8
WENN/Getty Images
Who Won: Jaslene Gonzalez
Should Have Won: Renee Alway
We were rooting for Renee from the very beginning. When she came in third place, we obviously started supporting Jaslene just to prevent the bizarre Natasha from winning. Deep down though, we still feel wronged by Renee's elimination.
Cycle 9
WENN/The CW
Who Won: Saleisha Stowers
Should Have Won: Jenah Doucette
We never liked Saleisha. She kind of looked like Rihanna if Rihanna were on Disney. We were never into it. Chantal similarly had sanitized feel to her. Jenah shined as the only normal, likable girl in the cycle. She was a great model too!
Cycle 10
WENN/WENN
Who Won: Whitney Thompson
Should Have Won: Anya Kop
This is one that outrages us still. Whitney was unlikable and even the judges thought so for most of the season. She just happened to get farther than any other plus-sized model, so they let her win. Everybody knows that Anya ran that cycle as if she were already a professional. Her photo shoot with Nigel? Her Sprite campaign? And don't even get us started on the injustice of eliminating Tiffani Thiessen-lookalike Katarzyna. How did they pick Whitney?
Cycle 11
WENN
Who Won: McKey Sullivan
Should Have Won: McKey Sullivan
Girl was flawless. She was tall, stunning, poised, and had a lovely personality. Honorable mention to Analeigh Tipton though for doing her thing and having a great career.
Cycle 12
Getty Images/Getty Images
Who Won: Teyona Anderson
Should Have Won: Allison Harvard
Allison. Our favorite contestant in the history of ANTM. This one hurts. We're not quite ready to talk about it.
Cycle 13
WENN
Who Won: Nicole Fox
Should Have Won: Nicole Fox
We loved Nicole and we loved runner-up Laura Kirkpatrick. Tyra didn't have the chance to mess this cycle up.
Cycle 14
WENN/WENN
Who Won: Krista White
Should Have Won: Raina Hein
Raina has been working more than anyone else from this cycle -- we've been seeing her pop up on commercials, and a working model is a successful one. Overall, we didn't really like this cycle.
Cycle 15
WENN/The CW
Who Won: Ann Ward
Should Have Won: Kayla Ferrel
First of all, Ann's runway walk was not good. Chelsey and Jane were both good models, but there was something about Kayla that we were consistently drawn to. She somehow looked like a classic beauty, yet edgy and modern. She was fieeeeerce.
Cycle 16
WENN/Getty Images
Who Won: Brittani Kline
Should Have Won: Hannah Jones
Were we the only ones who didn't hate Alexandria? We would have been happy if she won, but instead we were left with Brittani. She was a fine model, but on a personal level, we just stopped liking her after that meltdown in panel. Hannah also reminded us a lot of Analeigh from cycle 12, so we had a soft spot for her.
Cycle 17
WENN/Getty Images
Who Won: Lisa D'Amato
Should Have Won: Allison Harvard
TWICE? REALLY? Allison, who broke our hearts when she was runner-up in cycle 12, admits that it sucks to be runner-up twice. She should have won. Twice. She's the best. We'll never be ready to talk about this.
Cycle 18
WENN/WENN/Twitter
Who Won: Sophie Sumner
Should Have Won: ...Annaliese Dayes? ...Laura LaFrate? Maybe Sophie?
This is one of those cycles that had three great girls at the end. At one point or another, we rooted for all of them to win. We're happy Sophie won because she was a cutie, but we loved Annaliese way more throughout the competition. She was like a Spice Girl and a model all in one.
Cycle 19
WENN/Twitter
Who Won: Laura James
Should Have Won: Leila Goldkuhl
Laura is a fantastic model -- let's just get that out of the way up front. Leila was eliminated, because Tyra rarely makes good decisions, and brought back by the fans who loved her. Clearly she was a fan-favorite and she should have won. Leila was definitely better than runner-up Kiara.
Cycle 20
Twitter/The CW
Who Won: Jourdan Miller
Should Have Won: Renee Bhagwandeen
Our friend texted within the first episode of ANTM 2.0 saying she couldn't stand the girl who was married and divorced at 18. And she never really made us like her more. On the other hand, from the moment Renee was shown in the casting episode, she had our vote. We were gung-ho from the get-go. Sure, Cory and Marvin were fantastic, but personally we're still rooting for the girls.
Will Tyra make the right choice in Cycle 21?

DreamWorks
For the bulk of every Rocky and Bullwinkle episode, moose and squirrel would engage in high concept escapades that satirized geopolitics, contemporary cinema, and the very fabrics of the human condition. With all of that to work with, there's no excuse for why the pair and their Soviet nemeses haven't gotten a decent movie adaptation. But the ingenious Mr. Peabody and his faithful boy Sherman are another story, intercut between Rocky and Bullwinkle segments to teach kids brief history lessons and toss in a nearly lethal dose of puns. Their stories and relationship were much simpler, which means that bringing their shtick to the big screen would entail a lot more invention — always risky when you're dealing with precious material.
For the most part, Mr. Peabody &amp; Sherman handles the regeneration of its heroes aptly, allowing for emotionally substance in their unique father-son relationship and all the difficulties inherent therein. The story is no subtle metaphor for the difficulties surrounding gay adoption, with society decreeing that a dog, no matter how hyper-intelligent, cannot be a suitable father. The central plot has Peabody hosting a party for a disapproving child services agent and the parents of a young girl with whom 7-year-old Sherman had a schoolyard spat, all in order to prove himself a suitable dad. Of course, the WABAC comes into play when the tots take it for a spin, forcing Peabody to rush to their rescue.
Getting down to personals, we also see the left brain-heavy Peabody struggle with being father Sherman deserves. The bulk of the emotional marks are hit as we learn just how much Peabody cares for Sherman, and just how hard it has been to accept that his only family is growing up and changing.
DreamWorks
But more successful than the new is the film's handling of the old — the material that Peabody and Sherman purists will adore. They travel back in time via the WABAC Machine to Ancient Egypt, the Renaissance, and the Trojan War, and 18th Century France, explaining the cultural backdrop and historical significance of the settings and characters they happen upon, all with that irreverent (but no longer racist) flare that the old cartoons enjoyed. And oh... the puns.
Mr. Peabody &amp; Sherman is a f**king treasure trove of some of the most amazingly bad puns in recent cinema. This effort alone will leave you in awe.
The film does unravel in its final act, bringing the science-fiction of time travel a little too close to the forefront and dropping the ball on a good deal of its emotional groundwork. What seemed to be substantial building blocks do not pay off in the way we might, as scholars of animated family cinema, have anticipated, leaving the movie with an unfinished feeling.
But all in all, it's a bright, compassionate, reasonably educational, and occasionally funny if not altogether worthy tribute to an old favorite. And since we don't have our own WABAC machine to return to a time of regularly scheduled Peabody and Sherman cartoons, this will do okay for now.
If nothing else, it's worth your time for the puns.
3/5
Follow @Michael Arbeiter
//
| Follow @Hollywood_com
//

ABC Television Network
Right now, Richard Castle and and Kate Beckett are engaged to be married on Castle. They are planning their wedding while also solving crimes and getting into precarious situations. The biggest unsolved mystery seems to be whether these two will actually make it to the altar. Will everyone's hopes be dashed once again? By this point, fans have had the football yanked away about 800 times. The show has teased, taunted, prodded, and practically kicked up with innuendo only to back up each time and now that they have finally united them. But sadly, I'm afraid we might see them split once more. Here's three possibilities:
1) Beckett Puts Up Her Walls Again
I know that she's sworn up and down that she's going to stop with the whole "secrets" thing with Castle, but the woman laid down more bricks than the Great Wall of China. There's going to be another time when she shuts her feelings down. I just hope that it's not the day of the wedding, or someday close to it. But there will undoubtedly be some drama up ahead.
2) Castle Does Something Really, Really Dumb
In the Castle universe, Beckett closes off her feelings and Castle acts too quickly on them, often doing impulsive things without bothering to check how it might impact others. That's trouble enough if you're single. If you're married or engaged, even worse. Let's just hope that several decades from now, he isn't hosting his own talk show and seeking wife No. 10. I could see him doing something so dumb that it goes way beyond the mere eye-rolling reaction and stern talking-to that it usually elicits. So yeah, it would stink if the wedding was called off because of that.
3) Something Bad Happens to Alexis or Martha
So far, the engagement has withstood Castle's daughter being kidnapped half a world away, but if there were something more... final to happen to either Alexis or Martha, it'd be hard for the wedding to move forward. Never mind the wedding! If either character were to exit permanently, the show itself would really suffer, since both of them serve to also ground Castle and give him perspective in any of his own troubles. Were this to happen, I think it would be fatal for the show itself.
Follow @Hollywood_com
//
Follow @literateartist
//

The founding members of rock band Survivor have launched a legal action against label bosses at Sony Music over allegations of missing royalties surrounding their smash 1982 hit Eye Of The Tiger. Frank Sullivan and James Peterick filed a breach of contract lawsuit in Illinois federal court on Friday (31Jan14), claiming they have not received the 50 per cent of profits they are entitled to as per the terms of a 1978 recording agreement regarding licenced masters.
They suggest Sony Music executives have categorised digital downloads as "sales of records" instead of licences, meaning they only need to pay Survivor bandmates a fraction of the song royalties.
The plaintiffs, who are seeking compensatory damages, have also accused Sony chiefs of threatening to remove their tracks from digital music outlets like iTunes.com and are asking a judge to issue an injunction banning them from pulling the plug, thereby protecting their revenue stream from legal downloads, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Tribeca Film via Everett Collection
For a film that involves a love triangle, mental illness, a Bohemian colony of free-spirits, an impending war and several important historical figures, the most exciting elements of Summer in February are the stunning shots of the English country and Cornish seaside. The rest of the film never quite lives up to the crashing waves and sun-dappled meadows that are used to bookend the scenes, as the entertaining opening never manages to coalesce into a story that lives up the the cinematography, let alone the lives of the people that inspired it.
Set in an Edwardian artist’s colony in Cornwall, Summer in February tells the story of A.J. Munnings (Dominic Cooper), who went on to become one of the most famous painters of his day and head of the Royal Academy of Art, his best friend, estate agent and part-time soldier Gilbert Evans (Dan Stevens), and the woman whom they both loved, aspiring artist Florence Carter-Wood (Emily Browning). Her marriage to Munnings was an extremely unhappy one, and she attempted suicide on their honeymoon, before killing herself in 1914. According to his journals, Gilbert and Florence were madly in love, although her marriage and his service in the army kept them apart.
When the film begins, Munnings is the center of attention in the Lamorna Artist's Colony, dramatically reciting poetry at parties and charming his way out of his bar tab while everyone around him proclaims him to be a genius. When he’s not drinking or painting, he’s riding horses with Gilbert, who has the relatively thankless task of keeping this group of Bohemians in line. Their idyllic existence is disrupted by the arrival of Florence, who has run away from her overbearing father and the fiancé he had picked out for her in order to become a painter.
Stevens and Browning both start the film solidly, with enough chemistry between them to make their infatuation interesting. He manages to give Gilbert enough dependable charm to win over both Florence and the audience, and she presents Florence as someone with enough spunk and self-possession to go after what she wants. Browning’s scenes with Munnings are equally entertaining in the first third of the film, as she can clearly see straight through all of his bravado and he is intrigued by her and how difficult she is to impress. Unfortunately, while the basis of the love triangle is well-established and entertaining, it takes a sudden turn into nothing with a surprise proposal from Munnings.
Neither the film nor Browning ever make it clear why Florence accepts his proposal, especially when they have both taken great pains to establish that she doesn’t care much for him. But once she does, the films stalls, and both Stevens and Browning spend the rest of the film doing little more than staring moodily and longingly at the people around them. The real-life Florence was plagued by depression and mental instability, but neither the film nor Browning’s performance ever manage to do more than give the subtlest hint at that darkness. On a few occasions, Browning does manage to portray a genuine anguish, but rather than producing any sympathy from the audience, it simply conjures up images of a different film, one that focused more on Florence, and the difficulties of being a woman with a mental illness at a time when both were ignored or misunderstood.
Stevens is fine, and Gilbert starts out with the same kind of good-guy appeal the won the heart of Mary Crawley and Downton Abbey fans the world over. However, once the film stalls, so does his performance, and he quickly drops everything that made the character attractive or interesting in favor of longing looks and long stretches of inactivity. He does portray a convincing amount of adoration for Florence, although that's about the only real emotion that Gilbert expresses for the vast majority of the film, and even during his love scene, he never manages to give him any amount of passion.
Cooper does his best with what he’s given, and tries his hardest to imbue the film with some substance and drama. His Munnings is by turns charming, brash, and brooding, the kind of person who has been told all of their life that they are special, and believes it. He even manages to give the character some depth, and even though he and Browning have very little chemistry, he manages to convey a genuine affection for her. It’s a shame that Munnings becomes such a deeply unlikable character, because Cooper is the only thing giving Summer in February a jolt of life – even if it comes via bursts of thinly-explained hostility. It's hard to watch just how hard he's working to connect with his co-stars and add some excitement to a lifeless script and not wish that he had a better film to show off his talents in.
Unfortunately, by the time Florence and Gilbert are finally spurred into activity, the film has dragged on for so long that you’re no longer invested in the characters, their pain, or their love story, even if you want to be. Which is the real disappointment of Summer in February; underneath the stalled plot and the relatively one-note acting, there are glimmers of a fascinating and compelling story that’s never allowed to come to the forefront.
2/5
Follow @hollywood_com
//
Follow @julesemm
//

Lions Gate via Everett Collection
When we last left our heroes, they had conquered all opponents in the 74th Annual Hunger Games, returned home to their newly refurbished living quarters in District 12, and fallen haplessly to the cannibalism of PTSD. And now we're back! Hitching our wagons once again to laconic Katniss Everdeen and her sweet-natured, just-for-the-camera boyfriend Peeta Mellark as they gear up for a second go at the Capitol's killing fields.
But hold your horses — there's a good hour and a half before we step back into the arena. However, the time spent with Katniss and Peeta before the announcement that they'll be competing again for the ceremonial Quarter Quell does not drag. In fact, it's got some of the film franchise's most interesting commentary about celebrity, reality television, and the media so far, well outweighing the merit of The Hunger Games' satire on the subject matter by having Katniss struggle with her responsibilities as Panem's idol. Does she abide by the command of status quo, delighting in the public's applause for her and keeping them complacently saturated with her smiles and curtsies? Or does Katniss hold three fingers high in opposition to the machine into which she has been thrown? It's a quarrel that the real Jennifer Lawrence would handle with a castigation of the media and a joke about sandwiches, or something... but her stakes are, admittedly, much lower. Harvey Weinstein isn't threatening to kill her secret boyfriend.
Through this chapter, Katniss also grapples with a more personal warfare: her devotion to Gale (despite her inability to commit to the idea of love) and her family, her complicated, moralistic affection for Peeta, her remorse over losing Rue, and her agonizing desire to flee the eye of the public and the Capitol. Oftentimes, Katniss' depression and guilty conscience transcends the bounds of sappy. Her soap opera scenes with a soot-covered Gale really push the limits, saved if only by the undeniable grace and charisma of star Lawrence at every step along the way of this film. So it's sappy, but never too sappy.
In fact, Catching Fire is a masterpiece of pushing limits as far as they'll extend before the point of diminishing returns. Director Francis Lawrence maintains an ambiance that lends to emotional investment but never imposes too much realism as to drip into territories of grit. All of Catching Fire lives in a dreamlike state, a stark contrast to Hunger Games' guttural, grimacing quality that robbed it of the life force Suzanne Collins pumped into her first novel.
Once we get to the thunderdome, our engines are effectively revved for the "fun part." Katniss, Peeta, and their array of allies and enemies traverse a nightmare course that seems perfectly suited for a videogame spin-off. At this point, we've spent just enough time with the secondary characters to grow a bit fond of them — deliberately obnoxious Finnick, jarringly provocative Johanna, offbeat geeks Beedee and Wiress — but not quite enough to dissolve the mystery surrounding any of them or their true intentions (which become more and more enigmatic as the film progresses). We only need adhere to Katniss and Peeta once tossed in the pit of doom that is the 75th Hunger Games arena, but finding real characters in the other tributes makes for a far more fun round of extreme manhunt.
But Catching Fire doesn't vie for anything particularly grand. It entertains and engages, having fun with and anchoring weight to its characters and circumstances, but stays within the expected confines of what a Hunger Games movie can be. It's a good one, but without shooting for succinctly interesting or surprising work with Katniss and her relationships or taking a stab at anything but the obvious in terms of sending up the militant tyrannical autocracy, it never even closes in on the possibility of being a great one.
3.5/5
Follow @Michael Arbeiter
//
| Follow @Hollywood_com
//

Elizabeth Banks and Paul Giamatti will be "Surfin' USA" alongside John Cusack and Paul Dano in the Brian Wilson biopic Love &amp; Mercy. The Hunger Games actress and Amazing Spider-Man 2 stars are set to star in Love &amp; Mercy, which will document Wilson, played by Cusack and Dano, as he grapples with mental illness throughout the decades of his acclaimed music career as the rockin' Beach Boys front-man.
On top of showcasing Wilson's superb raw talent as a musician, the Bill Pohlad-directed and -produced film emphasizes the people in his life that helped guide him along the way. Banks is slated to take on the role of Wilson's wife, Melinda, and Giamatti will portray Dr. Eugene Landy, Wilson's therapist.
Wilson first met his wife when he and his band performed at Hollywood nightclub Pandora's Box in October 1962. After clumsily spilling a drink all over Marilyn, the couple started dating despite their apparent age gap– she was 14 and a high school student, while he was a 20-year-old performer. scandalous!
Marilyn hired Dr. Eugene Landy to treat her husband in 1975. Dr. Landy's unorthodox 24-hour therapy regime was and is considered highly controversial. Although Landy triumphed in limiting Wilson's abusive drug habits and successfully rejuvenated the musician's look and health, the doc (who earned the brand "Doctor Feelgood") was fired by The Beach Boys for allegedly brainwashing, isolating, and drugging his patient.
Biopics documenting legendary and impactful men are all the trend right now: first Ashton Kutcher will tackle the role of Apple Inc. genius Steve Jobs in the film Jobs, and next up Paul Dano and John Cusack will star as Wilson when production for Love &amp; Mercy written by Oren Moverman begins in August.
Follow Cori on Twitter @gimmegimmeCOR Follow Hollywood.com on Twitter @Hollywood_com
More:Smile! Paul Dano Will Play Brian Wilson in 'Love &amp; Mercy' Biopic James Brown Has Got a Brand New Biopic! Mick Jagger and Brian Grazer to Begin CastingAshton Kutcher as 'jOBS': How Well Does He Pull Off Nerd? — PICS
From Our PartnersStars Pose Naked for 'Allure' (Celebuzz)20 Grisliest TV Deaths of 2012-2013 (Vulture)

If you've ever seen a college comedy — or heck, just about any underdog story — you can probably predict every beat of Monsters University: an earnest, hard-working newcomer pursues his unlikely passions in a new environment, quickly learning that he is in way over his head. There's a quasi-antagonistic foil, one who might eventually become his ally (or heck, best pal!), and a majorly antagonistic authority figure, and probably a series of competitions that'll prove the worth of our lovable heroes. They'll lose the first round, but by some loophole be allowed back into the games, only to reign supreme in every subsequent feat of strength, ultimately achieving something in the vein of self-worth, or new friendships, or a car.
And it works. Sure, any genre-savvy adult might find Monsters U to deliver one of Pixar's less impressive plots, but it hits every mark in terms of entertaining its younger demographic — it is bright and lively, kooky and funny (while teenage Mike and Sully aren't half as witty as their adult counterparts, their goofy frat brothers offer enough good-natured quirk to make up for it), and illustrative of the all-important messages of acceptance of yourself, no matter what your limitations, and others, regardless of how much they veer from your ideals. While the rest of the campus sees Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) as a nobody, he's sure from the get-go that he's destined to be a great scarer, obsessing over every theory and formula behind the exhaustive study. Jimmy Sullivan (John Goodman), on the other hand, is universally beloved and admired, banking on his father's legacy to help him coast through a field that he knows to "come naturally" for him.
But both young "men" are thrown for a loop when it turns out that neither brains nor charisma alone can build an effective scare machine. You need the full package. Thus, the heartwarming banding together of this way-too-different-to-Ever-be-friends-oh-wait-this-is-Disney pair, resulting in the lifelong friendship that we stumbled into in Monsters, Inc. ... with one exception.
These are Not the characters we met in Monsters, Inc. — not the Sully, and definitely not the Mike.
Sure, the easy argument is that as teenagers, the fellas had different attitudes, different outlooks, different personalities. That the events of Monsters University helped Sully to learn a lesson about hubris, eventually becoming the upstanding hero that we first discovered back in 2001. But does that forgive the fact that we're faced with a relative in the new release? And what about Mike? In the original, Crystal sighs and whines as a nebbishy 9-to-5er, a glory hound who seems less like a lifelong scaring aficianado and more so a cog in the all-encompassing machine of the monsters' benignly Orwellian society. He's a wiseass who fibs and smack-talks, who fails to file paperwork and aches to clocks out early. Not an evolution of the Monsters University hero, but a separate character entirely. And, in earnest, a much funnier one.
As such, we wonder if the story would have been better served with a focus on two different characters entirely — perhaps the son of Monsters, Inc.'s James Sullivan, and a wide-eyed original character in place of the pseudo-Wazowski. Naturally, this is simply not good business. People signing onto a Monsters, Inc. follow-up want to see the characters they fell in love with, and would be far more likely to hitch wagons to at the very least a thin guise of said characters than to something altogether new. But with a much younger spirit than its predecessor, a younger mentality and as such a younger audience to please, it's worth noting that the people this movie is really reaching were probably not even alive when Monsters, Inc. came out.
We'd be more inclined to judge the film as a standalone feature if it didn't grab for off-references to Inc. every few scenes, peppering in jokes about Mike's canon inability to take a good photo (or to recognize when he has taken a bad one), the eventual decay of the first's villain Randal (Steve Buscemi), and about the mysterious existence of special agent Roz, among others. With constant reminders to the glory that was Monsters, Inc., a movie that painted a vivid world that University's hardly lives up to, longstanding Pixar fans are bound to face disappointment.
However, those noble cinephiles able to take the new release as its own dish, feasting on the sweet and tender parable about friendship and tolerance, and chuckling at some of the crazier side characters' likable antics, will find it to be just enough simple fun and feel-goodery. While Inc. and many of its Pixar brethren are stocked with entertainment for all audiences, this one's really more for the kids ... which is odd, because there's a scene of monsters playing beer pong.
3/5
Follow Michael Arbeiter on Twitter @MichaelArbeiter | Follow hollywood.com on Twitter @hollywood_com
More:Every Pixar Movie Has a Non-Pixar Equivalent4 'Monsters University' Clips12 Animation Milestones
From Our PartnersStars Pose Naked for 'Allure' (Celebuzz)Let’s Translate Walter White, Taylor Swift and More into Dothraki (Vulture)

In the formidable years leading up to college, we are tutored in the ways of dorm life by films like Animal House, Van Wilder, Old school... in short, we get a pretty unrealistic vantage point of what higher learning (oh, there's another one!) actually is. But that's because lounging around common rooms and cramming for finals doesn't make for very entertaining cinema. As such, Monsters University is keeping in step with its collegiate predecessors, thrusting Pixar's beloved Mike Wazowski (voiced by Billy Crystal) and James "Sulley" Sullivan (John Goodman) into raucous parties, roommate squabbles, and life-or-death situations of the most extreme caliber.
Check out these two new clips from Monsters University and catch the film in theaters on June 21.
Follow Michael Arbeiter on Twitter @MichaelArbeiter | Follow Hollywood.Com On Twitter @Hollywood_com
More:Is 'Monsters University' Inappropriate for Kids?'Monster University' First Teaser Trailers: Mike and Sully Go to College'Monsters University': Kids Finally Get Their Animal House
From Our Partners:What Happened to 33 Child Stars (Celebuzz)40 Most Revealing See-Through Red Carpet Looks (Vh1)